BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, and
HAMMAN
FARMS,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 08-95
(Appeal
of Agency Action)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 24, 2008, we electronically filed with the Clerk of
the lllinois Pollution Control Board, Supplement to Hamman Farms' Motion for Hearing
Officer'sRuling
on Discovery, copies ofwhich are attached hereto and hereby served upon you.
Dated:
July
24,2008
Charles F. Helsten
Nicola Nelson
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson LLP
100
Park Avenue
P.O.
Box 1389
Rockford,
IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
Respectfully submitted,
On behalf of HAMMAN FARMS
/sl
Charles F. Helsten
One
ofIts Attorneys
This document utilized 100% recycled paper products.
70566464v1890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVll-LE, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATrON,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and HAMJ\1AN
FARMS,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 08-95
(Appeal
of Agency Action)
SUPPLEMENT TO HAMMAN FARMS'MOTION FOR HEARING OFFICER'S
RULING ON DISCOVERY
NOW COMES Respondent, HAMMAN FARMS, by and through its attorneys, Charles
F. Helsten and HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, pursuant to 35 nt.Adm.Code 101.616, and
as a supplement to its Motion for Hearing Officer'sRuling on Discovery, filed on
July 23,2008,
states as follows:
1.
In
the instant action, Petitioner challenges, and seeks Board review of, the IEPA's
May 1, 2008 decision, which prescribes the appropriate agronomic rate of application of
landscape waste at Hamman Farms, based on that fann's soil characteristics and crop needs. The
Petition challenging the Agency's calculation alleges that
it was the result of "deficient" analysis;
Petitioner further charges that the IEPA did not make its calculations based on Hamman Farms'
soil characteristics and crop needs.
(See
Petition at ID(E».
2.
On July 23, 2008, Hamman Farms filed a Motion for Hearing Officer'sRuling on
Discovery, in which Hamman Farms joined !EPA in opposing discovery in this case, arguing that
discovery is unauthorized in light
ofthe nature of this particular case (Agency Decision Review),
and because it would unnecessarily and improperly increase the burden
of this litigation on the
Respondents.
(See generally,
Hamman Farms'Motion).
70569205vl 890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
3.
In its Motion, Hanunan Farms explained that the Board has held that in actions
such as
this, the Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the record as it existed at the time of
the Agency's decision reveals that issuance of the challenged Agency approval would violate the
Act or Board regulations. (See Motion for Hearing Officer's Ruling
on Discovery at 11112, 3). ).
In
light of that standard (articulated in
Des Plaines),
the Board held that before discovery can
commence, the Petitioner must persuasively identify any additional discoverable evidence. As
of
this filing, Yorkville has not provided any explanation of why the record before the Agency is
inadequate, and why discovery of any kind is needed, much less discovery against Hamman
Farms.
4.
Shortly after Hamman Farms served a copy of its Motion for Hearing Officer's
Order
on Discovery upon the parties, the Petitioner served Hamman Fanos with Interrogatories
and Requests
to
Produce (attached hereto as Group Exhibit A).
5.
The discovery served on Hamman Fanns graphically demonstrates that Petitioner
is not using discovery in this matter to locate information that is relevant to whether IEPA's
decision-making process was deficient, but, rather, Petitioner is abusing the discovery process in
an effort to troll for information that Petitioner hopes may
be useful for other purposes, in other
cases, and also to harass and annoy Hamman Farms and to cause Hamman Farms to incur undue
and unreasonable expense.
6.
A review
of the attached discovery (Exhibit A), reveals that the Petitioner's
discovery requests to Hamman Fanns are not focused
on information that would tend to show
that the Agency's calculation of the proper rate was incorrect; the discovery propounded on
Hamman Fanns is instead focused
on harassing and imposing an undue burden on Hamman
Farms, which is only a party to this action because
of the potential impact on Hamman Farms if
2
70569205vl 890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
the Board were to reverse the Agency'sdecision.
7.
As an example of Petitioner's improper, irrelevant discovery, Interrogatory No.7
demands that Hamman Fanns:
Identify all persons possessing knowledge
ofRespondent Hamman
Farms' landscape waste application operations, including the
amounts
of landscape waste that has been applied to Respondent
Hamman Farms' fields for the last ten years and the source
ofthe
landscape waste that Respondent Hamman Farms applies to its
fields.
This overbroad request, which seeks ten years worth
of detailed infonnation about farming
operations at Hamman Fanos, including the identity
of Hamman Fanns' clients, is not intended
to adduce evidence that will show that the Agency's May 1, 2008 calculation of the appropriate
agronomic rate for Hamman Farms' soil was perfonned
in a way that "violates the Act" and that
IEPA's calculation
of the appropriate rate was "not based on Hamman's soil characteristics or
crop needs."
(See
Petition at ID(J)).
3
70569205vl 890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
8.
Similarly, Petitioner's Request to Produce demands production of records that are
completely unrelated to the Agency's decision-making process (the subject of this action),
including production of "[a]ny and all documents showing the type and amount of fertilizer and
soil conditioner that Respondent Hamman Farms has applied to its fields for the last ten years."
(See Exh. A, Request to Produce, at Request No. 15). Petitioner also requests production of
"[a]ny and all violation notices that Respondent Hamman Farms received from the Illinois
Environmental Agency."
(See id.
at Request No. 18). Once again, such requests are not intended
to discover infonnation that will reveal the deficiency of the Agency's calculation of the correct
agronomic rate for Hamman Fanns'soil, which is the sole subject ofthis action.
9.
Yorkville's discovery requests broadly seek information ''relied upon" by
Hamman Farms, even though the focus of the Petition must legally be on what the Agency
''reliedupon." Accordingly, these inquiries are therefore completely irrelevant.
10.
The discovery sought by Petitioner is an excellent illustration of why discovery is
limited in these types of cases, and an even better illustration ofwhy the Board does not entertain
challenges to permits issued by IEPA, with rare and specific exceptions. As the Supreme Court
has observed, the legislature has made the decision to delegate to IEPA the authority to perform
"technical, licensing, and enforcement fimctions."
Landfill, Inc.
v.
Pollution Control Rd., 74
Ill.2d 541, 554, 387 N.E.2d 258,262-263,25 m.Dec. 602, 606-607
(Ill.
1978).
It
is therefore the
Agency, not the Board, that is solely vested by the legislature with "the duty to collect and
disseminate information, acquire technical data, and conduct experiments to carry out the
purposes ofthe Act... [and to] conduct surveillance and inspection of actual or potential pollution
sources."
ld.
The Agency has the non-delegable duty to "administer permit systems established
by the Act or regulations and has the authority to require permit applicants to submit plans and
4
10569205vl 890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
specifications and reports regarding actual or potential violations of the Act, regulations or
permits."
ld.
As
such, this effort by Petitioner to shanghai this decision-making process from the
Agency (and, in essence, substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature and the Agency)
should not be allowed.
11.
While Petitioner's discovery effectively tries to
layout what Petitioner thinks the
Agency should have examined in detennining
the appropriate agronomic rate for Hamman
Farms' soil,
"if the Board were to become involved as the overseer of the Agency's decision-
making process through evaluation
of challenges to pennits, it would become the permit-
granting authority,
a function not delegated to the Board by the Act.
II
Citizens Utilities Co. of
Illinois
v.
PCB,
265 m.App.3d 773, 780, 639 N.E.2d 1306, 203 Ill.Dec. 487 (3rd Dist. 1994),
citing Landfill,
74 Il1.2d at 557.
12.
In light of the irrelevant and abusive discovery propounded by Petitioner,
Hamman Farms renews its opposition to discovery, which is unauthorized
in this type of action
and which is clearly being sought
by Petitioner for improper purposes, most notably to harass
and annoy.
13.
In
the event the Hearing Officer nevertheless concludes that discovery is
authorized and appropriate in this action, Hamman Farms respectfully requests that the Hearing
Officer enter an order limiting the scope of discovery to the material in the record at the time
IEPA made the challenged decision, in accordance with very recent Board precedent.
(See, e.g.,
Des Plaines River Watershed Alliance
v.
IEPA,
PCB 04-088, at *11 (April 19, 2007,
aff'd
July
12,2008).
WHEREFORE, Respondent HAMMAN FARMS respectfully requests that the Hearing
Officer enter an order declaring that discovery is inappropriate in this action,
or in the
5
70569205v1890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
alternative, that the Hearing Officer enter an order limiting the scope of discovery to the material
that was considered
by
the
IEPA
at the time it made the decision that is challenged
by
Petitioner
in
this action.
Dated:
July
24, 2008
Charles F. HeIsten
Nicola Nelson
Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
George Mueller
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609
Etna Road
Ottawa, IL 61350
815/431-1500
6
Respectfully submitted,
On behalf of Hamman Fanus
/s(
_
One of
It
Attorneys
70569205v! 890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
EXHIBIT
R
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and HAMMAN
FARMS,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 08-95
(Appeal
ofAgency Action)
HAMMAN FARMS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PETITIONER UNITED
CITY OF YORKVILLE
Respondent, Hamman Fanns, by and through its attorneys, Charles F. Helsten and
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson LLP, pursuant to 35 llLAdm.Code 101.616 and 101.620, and hereby
directs the Petitioner, United City
of Yorkville, to answer these Interrogatories on or before the
deadline set
by the Hearing Officer.
Definitions
"Communication" means any transmission
or exchange of information, including,
without limitation,
any conversation, correspondence, meeting, and/or discussion, whether face-
to-face
or by means of telephone, telegraph, telex, telecopier, electronic mail or any other
medium.
"Documents" means without limitation all original and non-identical copies
of accounts,
acknowledgments, advertisements, affidavits, agreements, analyses, annual reports, applications,
appointment books, articles
of incorporation, assignments, audit reports, balance sheets, bills,
bills
of lading, bills of sale, books, brochures, bulletins, business cards, by-laws, calculations,
calendars, catalogues, charges, charts, checks, check registers, check stubs, circulars, client lists,
clippings, communications, computer cards, computer printouts, computer programs, computer
readable disks, computer tapes, consultant lists, consultant resumes, consultation reports,
contracts, conveyances, corporate minutes and minute books, correspondence, customer call
records, customer lists, data compilations, deeds, deposition transcripts, diagrams, diaries,
descriptions, drafts, drawings, electronic mail, employment applications, employment records,
evaluations, expense accounts, expense reports, facsimiles, files, file wrappers, film, financial
statements, forms, formulas, graphs, histories, income statements, indexes, instructions,
insurance policies, insurance records, insurance reports, inventories, invoices,
job assignments,
job descriptions, journals, ledgers, letters, lists, literature, log books, looseleaf binders,
magazines
... mailgrams, manuals, maps, memoranda, messages, microfiches, microfilm, minutes,
models, mortgages, motion pictures, news clippings, newsletters, newspapers, notebooks, notes,
705673&Ov] &83705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
notices, opinions, orders, organizational charts, pamphlets, papers, patents, periodicals, personnel
records, phono-records, photographic negatives, photographs, pleadings, pocket calendars,
policies, press releases, profit and loss statements, prints, procedures, prototypes, publications,
purchase orders, receipts, records, regulations, reports, resumes, rolodex cards, rules, samples,
schedules, searches, security agreements, shipping orders, shop drawings, slides, specifications,
statements, statements
of account, statements of assets and liabilities, statistics, studies,
summaries, surveys, tangible things, tape recordings, tax returns, telegrams, telephone bills,
telephone lists, telephone logs, telexes, test results, time cards, tiIile sheets, trade letters,
transcripts, travel vouchers, treatises, trip reports, warranties, work orders, work sheets, wrappers
and writings,
or other such items.
"Identify" when used in reference to a document, means to state its title; type (e.g, letter,
memorandum, etc.); author(s)
or originator(s); addressee(s) or recipient(s); subject matter; any
file numbers which
may be used in locating same; the name, present or last known address and
phone number ofall persons having possession, custody or control of same; and its disposition, if
no one presently has possession, custody or control of same.
"Individual"
or "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, company,
association, firm, organization, trust or other legal entity, including governmental entities.
"Petition" means the United City
ofYorkville's Petition in the above-captioned case.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.1:
Identify the name, address, telephone number and
job title
of the person(s) answering these Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.2:
Identify all individuals who possess knowledge of
each of the allegations in the Petition, and for each such individual, identify the allegation(s)
which the individual had knowledge of, and describe the extent
of his/her knowledge and the
basis for that knowledge.
ANSWER:
2
70567380vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
INTERROGATORY NO.3:
Identify all statements (whether written, recorded or
videotaped) of any person with knowledge of the substance of each of the allegations in the
Petition.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY
NO.4:
Identify any and all information and documents that
Petitioner relied upon
to support the allegation ofParagraph III(E) ofthe Petition.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY
NO.5:
Identify any and all information and documents that
Petitioner relied upon
to
support the allegation of Paragraph III(G) ofthe Petition.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY
NO.6:
Identify any and all information and documents that
Petitioner relied upon to support the allegation
of Paragraph I11(R) of the Petition.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY
NO.7:
Identify any and all information and documents that
Petitioner relied upon to support the allegation
of Paragraph I11(!) of the Petition.
ANSWER:
3
70567380v] 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
INTERROGATORY NO.8:
Identify any and all information and docwnents that
Petitioner relied upon
to support the allegation
in
Paragraph III(J) of the Petition that the
Agency's Decision was not based on Hamman's soil characteristics or crop needs.
INTERROGATORY NO.9:
Identify any lay witnesses expected to testify
at
the
hearing, and identify with specificity the subject matter
of each individual'stestimony.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Identify any expert witnesses consulted
by
Petitioner with respect to each allegation of the Petition, and for each witness, identify with
specificity:
a.
the subject matter of each witness'stestimony; and
b.
any opinions Petitioner expects to elicit from each.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify
all reports prepared by and any conclusions
or opinions reached
by the experts identified in Interrogatory
#10
of these Interrogatories, and
identify all documents those experts relied upon in fonnulating their conclusions or opinions.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Identify any independent or controlled expert
witnesses consulted or retained
by Petitioner, and identify with specificity:
a.
the conclusions and opinions of each witness and the bases therefore;
b.
the qualifications of each witness, including a copy of the witness's
curriculum vitae;
c.
all reports prepared by each witness concerning the subject of this
litigation~
4
70567380vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
d.
the rates charged by each witness; and
e.
with respect to each witness, the total amount of charges incurred for
his/her services to date.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Identify all documents relied upon by each
independent controlled witness identified in Interrogatory #12
of these Interrogatories in
reaching his/her opinion or conclusion, or in generating a report.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Identify all documents, reports, 0plmons or
calculations that Petitioner intends
to use in support of its
Petitio~
whether by introducing them
as evidence or by using them
in
other ways during the proceedings, and as to each) identify the
content and purpose
of each such docwnent.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Identify with specificity the statute or regulation
relied upon by Petitioner to assert that the Pollution Control Board has authority
to reverse a
technical determination
by the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency concerning the
appropriate agronomic rate
of application based on a fann's soil characteristics or crop needs.
ANSWER:
5
70567380vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Identify the dates on which the Yorkville City
Council met to consider the question of pursuing the instant action; the dates and times of such
meetings; the persons present during such meetings; whether evidence was presented to the City
Council concerning the anticipated cost
of such litigation; and if evidence of the cost to the City
ofpursuing such litigation was presented, identify the person who presented such evidence.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.
17:
With respect to the meeting(s) identified in your
answer
to Interrogatory No. 16, identify the individual(s) who made the motion to pursue the
action, the outcome of the vote concerning the motion(s), and any resolutions or draft resolutions
concerning the City'spursuit ofthis action.
ANSWER:
Respectfully submitted,
Respondent Hamman Farms
By.
~Its
4H~
Attorneys
Charles F. He1sten
Nicola
A.
Nelson
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
George Mueller
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609 Etna Road
6
70567380vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
Ottawa, IL 61350
815/431-1500
7
70567380vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
UNITED
CITY OF YORKVILLE, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and
HANri\1AN
FARMS,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 08-95
(Appeal
of Agency Action)
HAMMAN FARMS' FIRST REQUESTS TO PRODUCE OF PETITIONER UNITED
CITY OF YORKVILLE
NOW COMES Respondent, HAMMAN FARMS, by and through its attorneys, Charles
F. Helsten and HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, pursuant to 35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.616, and
directs the Petitioner to produce the following documents, objects
or
tangible things, on or before
the deadline set by the Hearing Officer:
DEFINITIONS
Document. "Document" shall mean all documents, objects and tangible things, including
every original (and any copy
of any original and any copy which differs in any way from any
original)
of every writing of every kind or description, whether handwritten, typed, drawn,
sketched,
or printed, including, without limitation, computer-generated or maintained data or
reports, books, records, papers, pamphlets, brochures, circulars, plans, correspondence, emails,
communications, telegrams, memoranda, notes, logs, notebooks, worksheets, reports, lists,
analysis, appointment books, diaries, telephone bills and toll call records, expense reports,
commission statements, confirmation statements, checkbooks, cancelled checks, receipts,
contracts, agreements, instruments, assignments, applications, offers, acceptances, written
memorials
of oral communications, photographs, photographic slides or negative films, digital
images, digital moving images and film strips to which Respondent
now has or has had access to
in
the past.
Communication. "Communication" includes all discussions, conversations, interviews,
meetings, negotiations,
emails.instantmessaging.cablegrams.mailgrams. telegrams, telexes,
cables, or other fonos
of written or verbal intercourse, however transmitted, including reports,
notes, memoranda, lists, agendas, and other documents, the identity ofperson(s) to whom and
by
whom it was made, the date it was made, the circumstances under which it was made, including
but not limited to the location where it was made. the date it was made, the means by which it
was made, and the fonn
in which it was made.
70567397vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
"Identify" when used in reference to a document, means to state its title; type (e.g, letter,
memorandum, etc.); author(s)
or originator(s); addressee(s) or recipient(s); subject matter; any
file numbers which may
be used
in
locating same; the name, present or last known address and
phone number
of all persons having possession, custody or control of same; and its disposition, if
no one presently
has
possession, custody or control of same.
Person. "Person" as used herein shall be the definition provided in Section 3.315
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (as amended).
"Refer
or relate" means anything which directly or indirectly concerns, consists of,
pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes, sets forth, constitutes, contains, shows, underlies,
supports,
or refers to in any way, or was used
in
the preparation of, appended to, legally,
logically, or factually connected with, proves, disproves, or tend to prove
or disprove.
All and Any. As used herein "all" refers to any and all, and the term "any" likewise
refers to any and all.
And / Or.
"And" as well as "or" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively
as necessary to bring within the scope
of this request any documents which might otherwise be
construed to be outside its scope.
INSTRUCTIONS
Any word written in the singular shall be construed as plural and any word written in the
plural shall
be construed as singular when necessary to facilitate complete answers.
Continuing Responses. This document request shall
be deemed to be continuing in
nature and if, after serving your responses, additional information becomes known
or available to
you, that is responsive to this document request, then you are required to reasonably supplement
or amend your responses.
Wark Product or Privileges.
With respect to each document, oral statement, or
communication which you claim is privileged
or subject
to
the work product doctrine, identify
the document, statement or communications to the fullest extent, including the date, maker, and
recipient, the general subject matter, and the basis of the claim ofprivilege or work product.
If any document requested is withheld on the ground of privilege, provide a log of all
such documents, including: (a) a description
of the subject of each such document; (b) all
persons who have knowledge
of each such document, or any having knowledge regarding each
such document, including without limitation the author
of any document withheld; (c) the date
and circumstance
of any communication of such document, including without limitation the
identification
of the author(s), any addressee(s), indicated or blind carbon copy recipient(s), or
other recipient(s); and (d) all grounds relied upon for not providing each such document.
If any document described by this request has been lost, destroyed, discarded or
otherwise disposed of, that document is to be identified as completely as possible.
2
70567397v] 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
If
any infonnation is redacted from a document produced pursuant to this request, that
infonnation
is to be identified and described generally, and all grounds relied upon for not
providing such infonnation are to be fully set forth.
If any document described by this request no longer exists, or is no longer within your
possession, custody or control, identify such document(s).
Identify in writing each paragraph
of this request for which no responsive documents are
produced.
Documents produced in response to these requests must be organized in categories that
correspond to the responsive request, and labeled
as such.
In
accordance with the foregoing definitions and instructions, please produce the
following:
DOCUMENTS
TO BE PRODUCED
REQUEST
NO.1: The permit which is the subject of the Petition.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST
NO.2: All documents which Petitioner (including but not limited to its
consultants, attorneys or experts) referred to, or on which it/they relied, when formulating or
drafting the Petition, including but not limited to:
a.
all documents that support Petitioner's allegation that the Agency's
conditions are "unworkable";
b.
all documents that support Petitioner's allegation that the Agency's
conditions are "inadequate
to protect the environment";
c.
all documents that support Petitioner's allegation that the Agency's
conditions are inadequate
to "ensure Hamman's compliance."
d.
all documents that support Petitioner's allegation that Hamman Fanus
"has admitted
to applying landscape waste at rates greater than agronomic rates without a
permit."
e.
All documents that support Petitioner's allegation that "Yorkville has
made complaints to the Agency regarding Hamman's application
of landscape waste."
3
70567397vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
f
All documents that support the Petitioner's allegation that "the Agency's
Decision...was not based
on Hamman's soil characteristics or crop needs."
RESPONSE:
REQUEST
NO.3: All documents referenced
III
Petitioner's Answers to the
Interrogatories propounded by Respondent Hamman Fanns.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST
NO.4: All documents relied upon by Mr. Gary Cima,
in
formulating the
opinion referred
to in Paragraph IIT(E)(b) of the Petition.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST
NO.5: All opInlons, notes. or reports prepared by Mr. Gary Cima
regarding the subject matter
ofthis action.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST
NO.6: All opinions, notes, or reports prepared by persons retained by
Petitioner, whether
as consultants or as expert witnesses, and all documents reviewed by such
persons in forming their opinions, notes, or reports.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST
NO.7: The curriculum vitae of each expert retained or consulted by
Petitioner concerning this action.
4
70567397vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO.8: All documents that Petitioner (including but not limited to its
consultants, attorneys
or experts) utilized or relied upon when drafting the Answers to the
Interrogatories propounded
by Respondent Hamman Farms in this action.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO.9: With the exception of attorney-privileged communications, all
documents that relate to the Yorkville City Council's decision to initiate this litigation, including
but not limited to agendas, minutes, resolutions, drafts
of resolutions, or notes that relate to the
City Council's decision to initiate this action.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO.1 0: All documents that the Petitioner intends to use and/or enter into
evidence in this action, whether at hearing or to support any motion.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 11: Petitioner is requested to furnish an Affidavit stating whether the
production is complete.
RESPONSE:
5
70567397vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
Dated:
Respectfully submitted,
One
of Its Attorneys
Charles F. Heisten
Nicola Nelson
Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford,
IL
61105-1389
815-490~4900
George Mueller
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609 Etna Road
Ottawa, IL 61350
815/431-1500
6
70567397vl 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 ofthe Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure.
hereby under penalty ofpetjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica,
certifies that
on July 16, 2008, she caused to be served a copy ofthe foregoing upon:
Michelle
Ryan
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand
Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Michelle.Ryan@Illinois.gov
Thomas G. Gardiner
Michelle M. LaGrotta
GARDINER KOCH
&
WEISBERG
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 950
Chicago,
IL 60604
tgardiner@gkw-Iaw.com
miagrotta@gkw~Iaw
.coms
A
copy ofthe same was enclosed in an envelope in the United States mail at Rockford, Illinois,
proper
postage prepaid, before the hour of 5:00 p.m., addressed
~~.
ove.
,/
PCB No. 08-95
Charles
F. Heisten
Nicola A.
Nelson
HINSHAW
&
CULBERTSON
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, II. 61105-1389
(815) 490-4900
70566472v] 883705
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 ofthe Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure, hereby under penalty ofpeIjury under the laws
ofthe United States ofAmerica,
certifies that on July 24,2008, she caused
to be served a copy ofthe foregoing upon:
Mr. John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board
100
W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
therriaj@ipcb.state.il.U5
(via electronic filing)
via e-mail
Michelle Ryan
Division
of Legal Counsel
Illinois Enviromnental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Michelle.Ryan@II1inois.gov
via e-mail
Thomas G. Gardiner
Michelle
M. LaGrotta
GARDINER KOCH
&
WEISBERG
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 950
Chicago,
IL
60604
tgardiner@gkw-law.com
mlagrotta@gkw-Iaw.com
via emaill
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100
w. Randolph Street
Chicago,
IL 60601
hallorab@ipcb.state.iLus
A copy of the same was enclosed in an envelope in the United States mail at Rockford, Illinois,
proper postage prepaid, before the hour
of 5:00 p.m., addressed as ave.
PCB No. 08-95
Charles
F. Helsten
Nicola
A. Nelson
HINSHAW
&
CULBERTSON
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford,lL 61105-1389
(815) 490-4900
70566472vl890519
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 24, 2008
